I don't know if 23 ppg in the 80's means you are an elite scorer (considering the faster pace, lack of defense, and increase # of possessions). In todays game, that would equate to maybe 17-20 ppg. Very good, but not quite elite. It would be like having 3 Josh Howards, or 3 Andre Iguodala's on your team.
But I agree that the Nets probably had an easier path. Both teams had easier paths than the Cavs are going to have.
Sounds like a fair point. In the 1986-87 NBA season...
Dale Ellis was 8th in scoring in the league.
Tom Chambers was 13th in scoring in the league.
Xavier McDaniel was 14th in scoring in the league.
Source
I guess it would depend on your definition of elite scoring. How many other teams had three players in the top 15 of scoring in the league that year? Not even the Celtics or the Lakers.
Yeah. I feel that the league has better scorers today though. I think that there are 3 guys that could easily put up Jordan-type scoring numbers in the 80s (Lebron, Kobe, Wade), and quite a few other guys that would average 26-30 on a yearly basis, and even surpass 30 multiple times (Dirk, Durant, Anthony, Roy).
The road is easy because we make it easy, you jellyfish crab bas s. Roads are easy to walk on when you have eight legs plus claws to move out the way.
Yes, as opposed to the Jazz, Rockets and Denver freaking Nuggets.
Who cares? If the Lakers play the Cavs it will be a great series that everyone will watch.
Was this your friendly way of saying, "oh my mistake?"
it does seem that all the stars are aligning for Cleveland this year.
No, not really. As I said, scorers back then definitely aren't as good as scorers today. No way would they be averaging those numbers in today's league. And fact is, you can have 3 good scorers, but still be a ty team. Just look at the Washington Wizards of recent years, with Arenas, Jamison, and Butler. 3 good scorers, and a lot of people thought that they were solid because of that, when the truth was, they were perennial 1st round fodder, because they could score points, and thats all they could do.
I never disagreed that the Nets had an easier road. While I lean towards the Nets having an easier road, I think the argument can go both ways, and that even though the Sonics were a bit better than the record showed, I don't know if they were so much better than the Celtics, that it makes the Lakers road unquestionably harder than the Nets road was, because the Pacers and Hornets weren't really bad teams either. Very likely better than the Warriors and Nuggets.
Just saying top 15 in the league would generally make you an elite scorer, at least for the season you are top 15 in the league. Those guys were elite scorers for 1986-87. I think you probably guessed that 23 PPG wouldn't have made them top 15 scorers in the league in an NBA era with faster pace and less defense and more possessions. Just saying.
As for the Wizards, I actually think those teams were pretty good when healthy. Their problems were more about injuries than it was about them not being a good team. They did win a first round series in 2005. After they lost to the Cavs in 2006, I thought they'd come back better the next year. The following two seasons, they faced injuries that prevented them from showing whether they could do anything or not in the playoffs.
As for Hornets not being bad in 2002, when the Nets faced them in the playoffs, they had already lost Jamal Mashburn for the season. They were a one man Baron Davis team. The next best players on that playoff squad after Mash went down were David Wesley and Elden Campbell. Not a pretty good team when the Nets faced them.
Indiana wasn't that good that year either. Not yet. That was JO's breakout year and Artest only played 24 regular season games with them after being traded for. I think all three teams the Nets faced in the playofffs in 2002 were pretty bad, even the Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker Celtics team that somehow won 49 regular season games.
I agree they were all not very good. Neither were the teams the Lakers played.
All the teams that made it out of the East during the time period between MJ's retirement and the emergence of Detroit were a joke.
Except the ones that won NBA les, you mean, because if you include those teams too, then the Western Conference teams those years and the whole league were jokes that year. But, then again, that might be what you think. The league has been a joke since the 80s.
None of them won les. I was referring to a small time period from 1999-2003.
the pacers were good in 2000
No they weren't. They were a great perimeter team that was lucky enough to play in a conference with no dominant post presence. The 2000 Suns would have made the finals if they were in the Eastern conference.
My fault. I misread your post.
I still remember Shaq EATING Indiana alive, Jesus. He averaged like 37/18 that series.
It sure does look that way but, man it would be funny if they swept all the way to the finals & then lose in the Finals!!!!
Pistons did that to the Lakers in 1989.It sure does look that way but, man it would be funny if they swept all the way to the finals & then lose in the Finals!!!!
That right!
flakers didnt just lose, they got swept after sweepin Portland, Seattle & Phoenix!
Lake Show had serious injury issues in the '89 Finals. Didn't they lose Magic and Byron Scott for at least the last two games?
"It's all about matchups"
lol if Orlando beats LA in the finals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
